Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?
That's what will go wrong if we don't start looking at nuclear.
Every cent we invest in nuclear research is lost to the immediate solutions.
This would only be true if 100% of GDP was spent on climate solutions. In reality, it's not a zero sum game like this. If some people get excited about nuclear and want to invest while others are excited about wind and solar, then that's great. The more the merrier!
No, nuclear is the only way forward. We know it can work. We need to invest now. Solar and wind cannot power our collective needs, and even if they could, to build it out would require such a massive doubling-down in fossil fuels that the planet would be one big desert by the time we finished.
Do you have a peer reviewed paper or two "proving" this?
The experienced nuclear builders aren't necessarily around anymore
Energy storage is not a solved problem, and it will not be a solved problem for the next decade. In the meantime, we need to build nuclear reactors now.
https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/01/radioactive_hybrid_te...
We still need to clean up the nuclear messes from earlier decades of nuclear research, a time when we were not afraid of the bad consequences of nuclear, and it shows, much to our detriment.
The least we could do is atleast replacing the current 50 year old plants that are still running today with modern safer designs.
The problem is nuclear is very expensive to build, takes forever for ROI, is a huge liability risk that likely no private company can tolerate, and a logistical nightmare with waste management and proliferation concerns.
I would personally be for it being adopted as a major DoE energy independence project where trillions are pumped in over 25 years to do it properly, and provide a cheap baseload to the population. That's unlikely. Just as unlikely as a private company actually being able to come through without cutting safety corners to improve ROI, or not becoming insolvent and externalizing the cost onto society the moment there is a problem.
Raise the price of fossil fuels by 10x. Then we'll see how expensive nuclear is.
> takes forever for ROI
So, better start now!
> huge liability risk that likely no private company can tolerate
Fuck the market. State-run reactors. Done.
> logistical nightmare with waste management
Dig a pit, throw it in.
> major DoE energy independence project where trillions are pumped in over 25 years to do it properly
Yes, exactly, this is what we need.
There really is no viable alternative to nuclear energy.
> Dig a pit, throw it in.
Dig a pit in non-aquiferous bedrock in a geologically stable region. It's not particularly hard, but it is nontrivial.
Almost all the radioactive waste that exists is from bomb making, not from power generation.
If you also create a good plan to recycle reactor fuel into new core assemblies, the total amount of waste drops by a significant amount below the relatively small volume power generation creates now.
Spent fuel rods are presently stored in casks on the grounds of power plants. There aren't mountains of them.
It's not all dry cask storage, most energy sites store spent fuel in cooling pools. NRC has had to authorize plants to exceed the original design limits of their pools due to the amount of waste with nowhere to go. This is hardly a trivial problem.
>NRC has had to authorize plants to exceed the original design limits of their pools due to the amount of waste with nowhere to go. This is hardly a trivial problem.
State your source(s) for this. I do know that the NRC has to authorize all on site storage whether there's "room" or not, simply because there's that much oversight involved.
But the trouble is not with the radioactive elements from the earth making it to the surface. Our current problem is with CO2 and its atmospheric accumulation. So instead of being scared of bogeyman like "waste leaking into the ground water" your only nightmare should be this:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Because that is on the whole planet and your future climate will affect every corner of the globe making whole continents uninhabitable, not just a few exclusion zones.
Regarding power generation, Fukushima has dumped gobs of radioactivity into the ocean. Even reprocessing facilities like La Hague release radioactivity into the channel which then flows into the North Sea.
The problem with just letting radioactivity leak into the environment(and those who claim "fewer people have died from nuclear than any other energy source"), is that the effects of radiation contamination may not be felt for decades, in things like early cancers, reproductive problems, and birth defects, and be hard to trace back to their original source.
Radioactivity is extremely dangerous, this is a well-known fact, and to not acknowledge the great challenges around managing nuclear projects and the waste they generate, just reduces the credibility of nuclear apologists. Nuclear could be done safely and effectively, it's just very very very expensive to do so and thus corners get cut, and we end up socializing the costs into haphazard sites, which will cost billions of dollars to maintain over the next few decades alone, and we all know nuclear waste will stick around much longer than that.
You mean the Japanese government has.
That aside, total radioactivity emitted by Fukushima's leaks stands at about 35 PBq if you count the amount released into the sea.
Total radioactivity released by coal burning power plants world wide is ~200 PBq.
Annually.
Fukushima grabs headlines, but it's releasing far less radioactivity than the ongoing operation of coal burning power plants.
>the effects of radiation contamination may not be felt for decades, in things like early cancers, reproductive problems, and birth defects, and be hard to trace back to their original source.
Especially since Fukushima is statistically unlikely to be the source, since so much more radioactivity comes from elsewhere.
>Radioactivity is extremely dangerous, this is a well-known fact,
Radioactivity is completely natural. It can be dangerous, but so can fire if you don't know how to handle it.
>and to not acknowledge the great challenges around managing nuclear projects and the waste they generate
Nuclear power plants generate only a small fraction of the waste that things like bomb making generate. The largest challenges for managing it are political because of the prejudice of the public against it.
Literally the only way to "save" Fukushima was to dump sea water on its melting down reactors in its initial days/weeks/months. I also don't get your deflection, as if you're insinuating the Japanese government is somehow a source of radioactivity. Actually it's coming from the melted down reactors. If you want to blame poor management as the cause of the nuclear diaster, unfortunately that seems to be a trend in the nuclear industry, so it doesn't help your argument.
>Radioactivity is completely natural.
Not in the concentration needed to run a nuclear reactor. Many mines are operating U-235 concentrations that are a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Some of those operations use methods similar to fracking to extract uranium, and are not clean. There are some select high-grade mines, but unsurprisingly, the high radiation levels require special precautions and heavy reliance on automation due to the deadly hazards radiation poses to personnel.
>The largest challenges for managing it are political because of the prejudice of the public against it.
Nope, it's a hard technical challenge that requires vast resources to solve. It is not as simple as nuclear apologist think it is. I would like to see it come to fruition, but as a major government project, where we stop the charade of it being a viable business model for private industry.